XMPP Council - 2018-03-07

  1. Kev

    There's so much on the agenda this week, I'm tempted to vote on-list *before* the meeting, just to speed things up :)

  2. Ge0rG

    I'm unfortunately late to the party, still moving and only on mobile for the next hour

  3. Ge0rG

    And the worst thing is, I was only able to work through half of the Dusty drafts in advance 😕

  4. Dave


  5. Kev

    'tis time :)

  6. Dave

    Yeah, that.

  7. Dave

    Two ticks while I bring up the agenda - do we have a minute-taker?

  8. jonasw

    cannot take minutes, on mobile

  9. jonasw


  10. Dave

    OK. I'll do it if needs be.

  11. Dave

    1) Roll Call

  12. daniel


  13. Dave

    SamWhited ?

  14. SamWhited

    I'm here

  15. Kev

    I'm still here.

  16. Dave

    Cool. So just quasi-missing Georg.

  17. Dave

    Ah. Well, folks, I seem to have a problem, because I've just been called by my daughter who needs a lift.

  18. Kev

    Send your votes on list, hope she's ok.

  19. Ge0rG


  20. Dave

    Sorry about this - can someone else take over for a bit?

  21. Kev


  22. Dave

    Kev, She's fine, but she'll get very wet if she tries walking. :-)

  23. Kev

    3) CFE for XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html

  24. Kev

    Each of these votes has two parts - first whether to Call For Experience before moving to Final, the second to instead deprecate it. This one is for CFE with the intention to later move to Final.

  25. Ge0rG

    Is 0020 actually used in practice? It's referenced from 0066 and some deprecated ones

  26. Kev

    I'm -1 for 20 CFE.

  27. Kev

    No, 20's not used in practice anywhere I'm aware, although 155 references it

  28. Ge0rG

    Yes, 0155 was the other one.

  29. Kev

    155 is also not used :)

  30. Ge0rG

    -1 then.

  31. daniel


  32. SamWhited

    I've been thinking about this one a lot, because I've *thought* tabout using 0020 a few times, but never ended up doing it and am not aware of anything else using it. I'm leaning vaguely against moving it on, so -0 I suppose.

  33. Kev

    4) Deprecate XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html

  34. SamWhited


  35. Kev

    Should we instead deprecate? I'm +1, although we do need to sort 155 too.

  36. Ge0rG

    +1 as well

  37. Kev

    SamWhited: If you feel it's useful, you can easily -1 here :)

  38. daniel


  39. SamWhited

    No, I'm all for getting rid of cruft that no one uses. It actually occured to me that I've been confused by this one a few times when I thought about using it too, so I feel better about a -1/+1 respectively, but I'll leave my votes alone so that you don't have to change anything.

  40. Kev

    Well, Dave's on-list if Sam wants to change his mind anyway.

  41. Kev

    5) CFE for XEP-0048: Bookmarks https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html

  42. Kev

    I feel this is premature while the ongoing 49/223 mismatch question isn’t answered. +0

  43. Ge0rG

    There's that elephant in the room...

  44. Ge0rG

    What Kev said

  45. SamWhited

    This is just to do a CFE, not to actually move to draft, right? Seems like a good way to get more feedback. +1

  46. Ge0rG

    So we need a way forward with that as well

  47. Kev

    SamWhited: Final, not Draft. But correct.

  48. jonasw

    cfe is for final not draft

  49. SamWhited

    err, right, that.

  50. Ge0rG

    Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick

  51. Kev

    I'm not going to fight this :)

  52. Kev


  53. daniel

    I'm not really sure.

  54. daniel

    Yeah I guess +1

  55. Ge0rG

    I like the current wording in 0048, it's good enough anyway

  56. Kev


  57. Ge0rG

    Ge0rG [17:11]: > Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick Read that as a +1

  58. Kev

    6) Deprecate XEP-0048: Bookmarks https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html

  59. Kev


  60. Ge0rG


  61. daniel


  62. SamWhited


  63. Kev

    I'm just going to assume everyone who's +1 for CFE is going to be -1 deprecating going forwards and skip the vote.

  64. Ge0rG

    Kev: yes please

  65. Kev

    7) CFE for XEP-0059: Result Set Management https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html

  66. Ge0rG

    What about the recent discussion of combining before and after in MAM RSM.

  67. Kev

    The ongoing before/after discussion in the context of MAM makes this seem premature too, as this might result in significant change (at least in how some people are reading it). -1

  68. SamWhited


  69. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes, I think we need to resolve that before we can sensibly think about Finalling this.

  70. daniel


  71. Ge0rG

    -1, what Kev said. Also -1 to depreciation

  72. Kev

    8) Deprecate XEP-0059: Result Set Management https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html

  73. Kev


  74. SamWhited


  75. daniel


  76. Kev

    9) CFE for XEP-0066: Out of Band Data https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html

  77. Kev


  78. daniel

    I'm not really sure what this is used for exactly...

  79. Ge0rG

    This is a good candidate for the "good parts" discussion

  80. daniel

    But +1

  81. SamWhited


  82. Ge0rG

    daniel: it's used for inline images in conversations

  83. Kev

    Ge0rG: Vote?

  84. Ge0rG

    Is anyone using the iq part of it?

  85. Kev

    I don't know, I think CFE should be interesting for this one.

  86. daniel

    Ge0rG: seems pretty hacky to me

  87. Ge0rG

    Then +1 for CFE

  88. Kev

    10) Deprecate XEP-0066: Out of Band Data https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html All -1

  89. Kev

    11) CFE for XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html

  90. SamWhited


  91. Kev

    +1. It seems sensible to deprecate it, but I think that we should ask if anyone’s using it first.

  92. Kev

    I suspect the outcome of a CFE on this one will make it obvious that it should or shouldn't be deprecated.

  93. daniel

    What Kev said. +1

  94. Ge0rG


  95. Kev

    12) Deprecate XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html

  96. Kev

    -1, as above.

  97. SamWhited


  98. daniel


  99. Ge0rG


  100. Kev

    13) CFE for XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html

  101. Kev

    I don’t see this advancing to Final unscathed, but +1 for a CFE.

  102. daniel


  103. Ge0rG


  104. Kev


  105. Ge0rG

    Somebody was recently asking for a way to make time limited messages

  106. SamWhited

    -0 I suppose; I'm a bit torn on this one, but I don't think it's worth blocking a CFE.

  107. daniel

    Not with this thought Ge0rG

  108. daniel

    Totally unsuited for that job

  109. Kev

    SamWhited: The CFE has been blocked (needs three +1).

  110. Kev

    14) Deprecate XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html

  111. SamWhited

    Oh, huh, I didn't realize that worked differently. Fair enough, I'll +1 for CFE then

  112. Kev

    -1. I think it needs discussion first (e.g. with a CFE, but doesn't need to be)

  113. SamWhited

    +1 for deprecation also though.

  114. Kev

    Almost all Council votes work that they need a majority of +1 with no -1. I've not checked the rules for CFE recently, but I'm sure it won't pass on a minority.

  115. Ge0rG

    -1, agreed with Kev

  116. daniel


  117. Kev

    15) CFE for XEP-0092: Software Version https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html

  118. Kev


  119. SamWhited


  120. daniel


  121. Ge0rG


  122. Kev

    16) Deprecate XEP-0092: Software Version https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html All -1

  123. Kev

    17) CFE for XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html

  124. Kev


  125. daniel


  126. SamWhited


  127. Ge0rG

    +1, sounds useful enough, but no idea who's using it

  128. Kev

    18) Deprecate XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1

  129. Kev


  130. SamWhited


  131. Kev

    19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html

  132. Kev

    +1. I think this is one for deprecation, but I also think we need to discuss, particularly the xep60 dependency, first.

  133. daniel


  134. SamWhited

    -0, wouldn't block.

  135. Kev


  136. Ge0rG


  137. Kev

    20) Deprecate XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1

  138. Kev


  139. SamWhited


  140. Kev

    21) CFE for XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html

  141. Kev


  142. Ge0rG


  143. daniel


  144. Ge0rG

    I'm for deprecation of 0131, but only after some discussion

  145. Ge0rG

    Sorry, mobile lag

  146. SamWhited

    -0 for CFE, +0 to deprecate.

  147. Kev

    22) Deprecate XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html Kev, Ge0rG, daniel -1. Sam +0

  148. Kev

    23) CFE for XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html

  149. Kev

    +1. Be interesting to see if anyone actually uses this.

  150. SamWhited

    I have an implementation and use it, so +1

  151. SamWhited

    HipChat also uses it, IIRC.

  152. SamWhited

    (although I can't remember; I implemented it, and I *think* I used LZW, but it might have been gzip)

  153. Ge0rG

    Compression is insecure if not applied very cautiously. We should deprecate all of the related xeps

  154. Ge0rG

    So I'm -1 / +1

  155. Ge0rG

    Unless this is a veto, then I'm - 0

  156. Kev

    Our illustrious Chair should check the rules, but I believe (without checking) all the -1s on CFE will veto them.

  157. SamWhited

    I generally agree with that, so I am a bit torn, but do want to have a CFE and see what others think.

  158. Ge0rG

    Kev: then log me as -0 please

  159. Dave

    (Back, but Kev can carry on for consistency)

  160. Kev

    daniel: Got a vote on this one?

  161. SamWhited

    Dave: did you really go anywhere, or did you just want someone else to go through this massive list for you? *squinty eyes*

  162. daniel

    +1 cfe with an option to later deprecate the compression xep

  163. daniel

    Not just this xep

  164. Dave

    SamWhited, Can I borrow your fifth amendment for a sec?

  165. Kev

    Dave: Are you jumping in to vote now, or On List for the rest too?

  166. SamWhited

    Dave: any time

  167. SamWhited

    > XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a Call for Experience

  168. Kev

    I'll take that as an On List and move on :)

  169. Kev

    24) Deprecate XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html

  170. Kev


  171. SamWhited

    Maybe we should have just been voting to deprecate, doesn't look like we need to vote at all on a CFE; oh well.

  172. SamWhited


  173. Ge0rG


  174. Kev

    daniel is -1 presumably as +1 on CFE

  175. Kev

    Ok, ta.

  176. SamWhited

    Not that it hurts; I guess we can only ask the editor to issue one for any that we've voted on (though if they wanted to do it for others, that's their business)

  177. Kev

    Now onto the 'real' stuff.

  178. Kev

    25) XEP-0045: Implement stable IDs on Reflection #600 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/600

  179. Kev

    The feature should probably be named otherwise (e.g. http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#muc_stable_id for consistency with xep45, or a URI for consistency with new stuff), but ok to the intent. +1 after that tweak.

  180. Dave

    +1 on that. Looks OK.

  181. daniel


  182. SamWhited


  183. Kev

    Ge0rG: Are you ok with my above tweak?

  184. Ge0rG

    Kev: check the XEP, it's full of muc_* features. I've taken consistency with those

  185. Kev

    I don't think they're *features*, I think they're config settings, from memory.

  186. Ge0rG

    Kev: but I'm fine either way

  187. Kev goes to xep45 quickly.

  188. Ge0rG

    Kev: you might be right

  189. SamWhited

    Can you two hash that out after the meeting (unless it's going to change a vote)?

  190. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: apparently it is, for Kev

  191. Kev

    I suspect either I'll be wrong, in which case I'll +1 anyway, or I'm right and the change isn't contentious.

  192. Kev

    26) XEP-0153: Clarify encoding of update hash #593 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/593

  193. Kev


  194. daniel


  195. SamWhited

    +1 (with the note that "hexidecimal digits" doesn't make much sense, but whatever, people will know what it means)

  196. Dave


  197. Ge0rG


  198. Kev

    27) Date of next meeting SBTSBC?

  199. Dave

    +1 to that.

  200. SamWhited

    oh, huh, nevermind, Wikipedia suggests that "digit" Is used regardless of the radix or number of symbols.

  201. SamWhited

    Ahem, back to this… +1

  202. daniel


  203. Kev

    Good enough :)

  204. Kev

    28) AOB?

  205. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  206. Dave

    None from me - I'll do the Editor's Issue for this and read through to write up the minutes.

  207. SamWhited

    Can I request that anything we voted on today where we ended up with no consensus to move forward or deprecate be added to the agenda for next week so we can hash through it in more detail and figure out why and what we want to do?

  208. Kev

    SamWhited: I suggest we do so onlist, before next meeting, personally.

  209. Kev

    But yes, we should see where the bodies have fallen and work out next steps.

  210. Dave

    SamWhited, I'll try to highlight those in the minutes, too, so we can thrash on-list as well.

  211. SamWhited

    That would work too, thanks!

  212. Kev

    Dave: I'm happy to write minutes if you like, as you weren't here.

  213. Kev

    I think we're done.

  214. Kev hangs the navel

  215. peter

    Great work!

  216. Kev

    Thanks Peter. I think that might have been the most on the agenda in a Council meeting ever. I'm amazed Dave had the stamina to go through them all.

  217. Kev

    Oh, wait.

  218. SamWhited


  219. Ge0rG

    So the train has emptied enough for me to open up my laptop *just now*.

  220. Kev

    Nowt about bragging, it's about shaming Dave, which is much more fun.

  221. SamWhited


  222. Kev

    Dave: Shout whether you'd like to minutes or like me to.

  223. Dave

    Kev, No, I'll do the minute in penance.

  224. Dave

    MinuteS. Definitely more than one of them.

  225. Kev


  226. SamWhited

    Request for people here:

  227. SamWhited

    If you start a thread about one of the things that we didn't get consensus on, please start a separate thread for each one instead of replying to all of them on the minutes email.

  228. SamWhited

    It will be much easier to follow.

  229. Kev

    Additional request for people: Can folks have a look at my suggested xep50 text and see if it looks sane and let me know, please? If so I'll turn it into a 'proper' PR, else we can adapt.

  230. Ge0rG

    What Sam said.

  231. Ge0rG

    Also we should list all XEP-### tags in the subject of minutes mail covering them, for subject-searchability.

  232. jonasw

    Dave, thank you very much for the editor issue

  233. Dave


  234. jonasw

    Dave, thanks! :)

  235. jonasw

    I’m gonna edit it to make it a tad more useful

  236. Dave

    I messed up, hang on.

  237. jonasw


  238. Dave


  239. jonasw


  240. jonasw

    CFE is not a state, is it?

  241. jonasw

    (in contrast to proposed)

  242. Dave

    Right, it's just a Call For Experience to the list.

  243. jonasw


  244. jonasw

    gonna make a template thing for that nevertheless

  245. Dave

    Which is interesting, because the Editor can do it at any time as long as certain conditions are met.

  246. jonasw

    Dave (et al.), shall we make the CFE period longer than 14d this time because they are so many at once?

  247. jonasw

    if so, how long?

  248. Zash

    Not on council, but that's probably wise. Or sending them in smaller weekly batches.

  249. jonasw

    I’m fine with both

  250. jonasw

    ha, I’m just gonna do that batched thing. it’s an editor task anyways.

  251. SamWhited

    I'd just do 14 days; we can always extend it later if needed.

  252. Zash

    Seems likely that they'd drown in each others noise if done all at once

  253. SamWhited

    Either way; batching seems reasonable and it's up to the editor.

  254. jonasw

    SamWhited, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601#issuecomment-371250631 rationale